Ecumenical discussion founded upon historic Christian orthodoxy

If You Can’t Be Charitable, Then At Least Do Your Homework

While thinking about Tim’s latest post, the belligerent angel on my left shoulder gave me a few ideas. Obviously the best case for theological discussion is for both sides to enter into conversation with the possibility of being wrong, and thus with something of an open mind and a kind tongue. This is ideal. I think it was Wolterstorff who said that it is only a discussion if you accept the possibility of being changed.

However, if this is too much to ask, the goal of catholicity can also be accomplished by challenging the other party to actually do his homework, read carefully, and get it right. This will actually work with some TRs because they pride themselves on being the “real deal.” So, simply show them all of the guys whom they profess allegiance to saying crazy stuff that doesn’t fit the paradigm.

Then challenge them to figure out why the guy said what he did. What questions was he seeking to answer? What paradigm was he working in? Who were his sources?

That’s really how you understand a thinker. If you find more than one or two weirds that don’t fit the model, then you need to change the model. This isn’t hip and trendy catholicity talk here. This is just basic academic advice.

Thankfully, we have a strong history with diverse thinkers upon which we can rely.

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

3 Responses

No… no evidence you adduce will ever be allowed to have valid counter-factual value. I can say this with complete confidence because I know you have selectively picked every piece of documentation, taking them out of context. And I know that weighed against the given person’s total theology and pre-commitments regarding what he must have held to, I can further know that you are wrong. I can say this even if I cannot document this alleged ‘total theology.’

:-)

It don’t work, nothing works. The only thing that works is the Holy Spirit instilling in a person a willingness to read and sincerely evaluate what is being read, using standard principles of interpretation and inferences. Some courage also helps, but that has to be Spirit-given too. :-)

It seems there has to be something we can do. Sectarians like this are Pharisees, demanding that people live up to their standard of perfection before God acceps them. So it seems that we ought to treat them in some way similar to how Christ treated the Pharisees. We can argue, but not like we think of arguing.

Yeah, good suggestions. However, they imply the willingness of the other party to “do its homework.” A few years ago, after being insulted by one of these people who claimed I was merely “making things up” regarding the influence of Enlightenment rationalism on Protestantism, I spent a few months of hard library work reading and researching four early Modern thinkers: Locke, Hobbes, Descartes, and Bayle. The result of months of work was four 15-page papers outlining the thought of these men and suggesting areas where they had influenced Protestant thought.

Well, after making the papers available I never heard a single word from my accuser, nor from the pop leaders he followed, nor from anyone else in their circle. As far as I know none of them even read my papers, much less attempted to interact with them. It was like all my labor had been for nothing, or at least, served only confirmed their accusation that I prefer “opinions of men” to Holy Scripture and so forth. This has been just about my constant experience with this crowd. So perhaps I have answered my own question, then, and should be pointing the finger at myself for being too stupid to stop banging my head against brick walls.